In the last scene when they are all praying to that statue, I wasn't sure who it was supposed to be. Maybe it was that final bit of narration that confused me. I liked the movie overall. But can you tell me positively who the statue was? Was it Arthur? I thought it looked kind of like him. Hard to tell.
shareThe image of the little girl praying? The comment about the goddess taking another form? It is a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary and shows the connections between the pagan and Christian faiths. The Christians took many of the pagan sabbats and ideas and adapted them.
shareIt was an exact copy of the goddess statue in the Avalon grove, with the addition of a veil.
Marko
[deleted]
Its utter tosh that tries to claim that the Christians worship the Goddess as the Virgin Mary, which makes no sense as the Virgin Mary is not seen as a Goddess at all.
"utter thosh"? Not at all... Sure, Mists is a fictional story... But the concept behind the Virgin Mary replacing "The Goddess" has historical precedence.
Take the Virgin of Guadalupe as an example... In short, the devotion or veneration (it's true that she's not "worshiped") of the Virgin of Guadalupe evolved from the worship of the Aztec goddess Coatlicue. This Goddess was known by many titles including Mother of Gods, Our Venerable Mother and the Lady of the Serpents -- she wore a skirt made of serpents.
Tradition holds that the Virgin Mary first appeared in the same spot where the temple of Coatlicue had once stood in the Hill of Tepeyac. The temple had been destroyed 10 years prior by Christians during the Conquest... She spoke in Nahuatl and identified herself as "coatlallope", later corrupted into the Spanish 'Guadalupe'. That word translates as "she who has dominion over serpents", a direct reference to Coatlicue... The reports of these "apparitions" were used by the Spanish as a tool in their campaign to Christianize (and further 'pacify') the native population of central Mexico, as it made the transition to Christianity more palatable. For they would still be worshiping Coatlicue (at least at first) but now in the image and in the guise of the Veneration of the Virgin Mary... same concept as in The Mists of Avalon
Bravefish, three major problems exist with yoru post.
1: The story in "The Mists Of Avalon" are set in around the 500's AD, the events you describe in Mezo-America happen 1000 years later.
The supposition in this fim si that the Pagans worhsipped the Goddess, much ike Modern Neo-Pagans and most particulalry Wiccans, and this Goddess was replaced by Christianity and its male God, but the Goddess never went away and the worhsip of the Goddess was transfered tot he Virgin Mary.
But veneration fo Mary existed before the 500's AD, and had no link to the Celts.
The Celic Pagans also had no "Goddess" to speak of.
Sure, they had goddesses, but no generic all encompassing deity known s "The Goddess", and the chif god they worshipped was the Dahgda, or All Father.
2: The idea htat the SPanish tried to convert the masses to Christiantiy to Pasify them may suit well the dea that Christainty was basiclaly created asa form fo Population control, and lionisign the Pagans as freedom lociving peopel whose faith made them storng seems to contrast well witht he enslaved midn of a Christain, but i sharldy True. Spanish Missionaries did not convert the indian Population in roder ot make them mroe docile so they cudl exhert control. They converted htem becuase they thought Christianiy was True.
Christaintiy also doenst pacify as much as you'd think.
3: The whole claim you make about the apparition of Mary in Guadelupe really being Coatlicue seems unsubstantiated. Do you have a soruce for htis? Or is htis another Neo-Pagan claim that has no basis in Reality?
Bravefish, three major problems exist with yoru post.
1:
The story in "The Mists Of Avalon" are set in around the 500's AD, the events you describe in Mezo-America happen 1000 years later.
The supposition in this fim si that the Pagans worhsipped the Goddess, much ike Modern Neo-Pagans and most particulalry Wiccans, and this Goddess was replaced by Christianity and its male God, but the Goddess never went away and the worhsip of the Goddess was transfered tot he Virgin Mary.
But veneration fo Mary existed before the 500's AD, and had no link to the Celts.
The Celic Pagans also had no "Goddess" to speak of.
Sure, they had goddesses, but no generic all encompassing deity known s "The Goddess", and the chif god they worshipped was the Dahgda, or All Father.
2.
The idea htat the SPanish tried to convert the masses to Christiantiy to Pasify them may suit well the dea that Christainty was basiclaly created asa form fo Population control, and lionisign the Pagans as freedom lociving peopel whose faith made them storng seems to contrast well witht he enslaved midn of a Christain, but i sharldy True.
Spanish Missionaries did not convert the indian Population in roder ot make them mroe docile so they cudl exhert control. They converted htem becuase they thought Christianiy was True.
Christaintiy also doenst pacify as much as you'd think.It doesn't matter whether it does or it doesn't. What matters is that that was the intent.
3:
The whole claim you make about the apparition of Mary in Guadelupe really being Coatlicue seems unsubstantiated.Or is htis another Neo-Pagan claim that has no basis in Reality?
I'm quicj to question anything that I read on a message baord I've not seen any reputable soruce on. Otherwise I'd think Jesus and Horus hads near Identical Lives, too.
So, if you'd not midn providinga soruce, it'd be great.
That said, the poitn I made ws the hwole "Mary replaces the Goddes" plotpoint was itself utter Tosh.
There are several documentations from the 16th and 17th century where it is mentioned that the Native people worshiped Coatlicue-Tonantzin as the Virgin of Guadalupe, or at least viewed her as such in some respect. It has nothing to do with "neo-paganism" as you claim.
Here are couple of books that you may want to check out, they devote a chapter or two precisely on this topic.
A Reader in the Anthropology of Religion by Michael Lambek
Quetzalcoatl and Guadalupe: The Formation of Mexican National Consciousness by Jacques Lafaye
Some of what is mentioned:
In the decades following the establishment of the shrine in Tepeyac in 1531, Bernardino de Sahagún (of the Florentine Codex) wrote about the popularity of the shrine among the Indians. He said that "the shrine at Tepeyac was extremely popular but worrisome because people called the Virgin of Guadalupe Tonantzin". Coatlicue was known as Tonantzin meaning venerable mother or our mother. Coatlicue-Tonantzin's temple and place of worship was in Tepayac.
Sahagún wrote that: "...they come from far away to visit that Tonantzin, as much as before; a devotion which is also suspect because there are many churches of Our Lady everywhere and they do not go to them; and they come from faraway lands to this Tonantzin as of old."
Friar Martin de Leon also made a similar observation: "On the hill where Our Lady of Guadalupe is they adored the idol of a goddess they called Tonantzin, and this is also the name they give Our Lady and they always say they're going to Tonantzin or they are celebrating Tonantzin and many of them understand this in the old way and not in the modern way..."
The following century, Friar Jacinto de la Serna, in discussing the pilgrimages to Guadalupe at Tepeyac notes: "...it is the purpose of the wicked to worship the goddess [Tonantzin] and not the Most Holy Virgin, or both together".
And of course it makes perfect sense that they would be worshiping their Goddess in the guise of the Virgin... These people had just been conquered a mere 10 years before. They had a rich religious life that had just been destroyed. So when Spanish gave them the Virgin, in the same spot where they had worshiped their "Venerable Mother" for centuries, is only natural that they would make a connection between the two and see the Virgin as another image of their Goddess or at least use the Virgin as an excuse to make the pilgrimage to their old place of worship. It's just simple human nature.
http://www.proyectoguadalupe.com/documentos/sahagun.html
http://148.206.107.10/biblioteca_digital/estadistica.php?id_host=6& ; ; ;tipo=ARTICULO&id=1519&archivo=6-117-1519yss.pdf&titulo=La %20Virgen%20de%20Guadalupe,%20un%20mito%20de%20amor
That said, the poitn I made ws the hwole "Mary replaces the Goddes" plotpoint was itself utter Tosh.
I skipped the rest as I look at sources before I comment, unless it’s the idiot Atheist types when I just troll.
That said,
Again, how so? If you're going to call it that, at least give a valid reason.…
On the other hand, Religious Syncretism (the plot-point in the movie) is well documented in Christianity, both in Europe and the Americas. Many involve a Pagan Goddess and the Virgin Mary, the above is just but one example.
You may not like that fact if you're a Catholic, but to simply dismiss it as "tosh" would be intellectually dishonest.
"I skipped the rest"
Of course you did.
"unless it’s the idiot Atheist types when I just troll."
Well, I don't really know what you mean by that... Are you saying that atheists are idiots? or that you're prejudiced against them and you'll dismiss any source if the author is an atheist... and then you'll "just troll"?? What an odd comment.
Moving on.. There's plenty of valid research and scholarly literature out there regarding religious syncretism in Christianity, and I'm not talking about the silly examples that you posted. The Guadalupe story is a good example of actual syncretism. It is common knowledge in Mexico. Witnesses at that time commented on it and Historians and anthropologists have researched and written about it. It's just a fact.
Obviously modern Catholics in Mexico don't worship Tonantzin when they venerate the Virgin... But those first generations of Indians who were conquered and forced to convert clearly did... And this is not an isolated case. We can see other examples involving an Indian female deity and Mary in Bolivia and Peru... This is what happens with conversion by the sword or when you impose a religion on a people. For a time people will go through a transitional period in which they will still worship their old deities, either in hiding or in the guise of a saint or the virgin. So this plot-point in the movie fits right in, even if the story is fictional the concept is not.
Brave-
"I skipped the rest"
Of course you did.
"unless it’s the idiot Atheist types when I just troll."
Well, I don't really know what you mean by that... Are you saying that atheists are idiots? or that you're prejudiced against them and you'll dismiss any source if the author is an atheist... and then you'll "just troll"?? What an odd comment.
Moving on.. There's plenty of valid research and scholarly literature out there regarding religious syncretism in Christianity,
and I'm not talking about the silly examples that you posted. The Guadalupe story is a good example of actual syncretism. It is common knowledge in Mexico. Witnesses at that time commented on it and Historians and anthropologists have researched and written about it. It's just a fact.
Obviously modern Catholics in Mexico don't worship Tonantzin when they venerate the Virgin... But those first generations of Indians who were conquered and forced to convert clearly did...
And this is not an isolated case. We can see other examples involving an Indian female deity and Mary in Bolivia and Peru... This is what happens with conversion by the sword or when you impose a religion on a people. For a time people will go through a transitional period in which they will still worship their old deities, either in hiding or in the guise of a saint or the virgin. So this plot-point in the movie fits right in, even if the story is fictional the concept is not.
This is an example of a quote put f context. Waitin till I fnd full information before I respond is beign rpesented by you as me ingnoring the poitn completley.
That is not intellectually homnst of you.
Tjis was directed at a specific type of Atheist, such as those hwo will simply argue their point regardless of facts, even if proven wrong. Plenty of them on IMDb.
You are now distortign what I've said to try to defame me, though.
Even Atheists like Ehrman have rejected these Theories.
Not all were forced to convert. In fact, the Churhc didnt wantanyoen to be, as a matter of Historical fact.
But has nothgn to do wiht what is shown in Mists Of Avalon, and I did say I'd look into it further before commenting.
Bravefish-
This is an example of a quote put f context. Waitin till I fnd full information before I respond is beign rpesented by you as me ingnoring the poitn completley.
That is not intellectually homnst of you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not at all...You said you ignored it, as in you didn't even bother to read it... which by the tone of your posts doesn't surprise me.
Please, asking you to clarify an oddly worded statement that reeked of prejudice is not "distorting or defaming you"... is just that... asking for clarification... Something you could have easily done.
What is it with you bringing atheism into this? It has nothing to do with it... It does, however, reinforces where you're coming from as it certainly shows your bias.
Oh come on! Really? I shoudln't have to tell you that what the theology says and was is done in actuality are not always the same thing...
The Spanish razed their temples, destroyed their idols and burned their religious writings. They killed their holy men. They told them that their religion was satanic in nature and forced them to abandon their rituals.
In some cases those that stilled practiced the old religion were put to death.
After all, the Spanish thought it was satanism...
Then they presented to them the only acceptable and "true" religion, they weren't given an option. I'm sure some individuals went "willingly" like sheep to the new religion. But taken as a whole, the Aztec nation was forced to convert to Catholicism. There just isn't any other way to call it.
*sigh* FFS dude, you keep missing the point... Of course it does, IT'S THE SAME FREAKING CONCEPT! Are you being obtuse on purpose?
Look, we're just going around in circles... your unwillingness to even considered the possibility that the worship of a pagan goddess carried on in some way to the veneration of the virgin, despite the evidence, tells me that you're on christian apologetic full-mode... So to continue with this discussion is probably just a waste of time... Cheers.
Bravefish you won. After reading this whole arugument it's clear what your saying .... Not so much for the other person. Besides I agree with you completely your not the only one who sees it this way:)
share